From phma@phma.optus.nu Sat Mar 13 20:51:53 2010 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqfnp-0002xx-6w for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:51:53 -0800 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=xyTXju_mUMQA:10 a=ORa4HqFjfvEA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=O8dEcYQDnwTMMm9L6cQA:9 a=ynhy35rs6JWunkQSoKk3BhpQPNUA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 71.71.198.100 Received: from [71.71.198.100] ([71.71.198.100:55958] helo=chausie) by cdptpa-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id 86/E5-23396-D5B6C9B4; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:51:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F872E9D for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:51:39 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:51:33 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003131245n23c64a7emfa56bccba3799045@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003131607v64d15ae1u29c42305e114c48a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17561003131607v64d15ae1u29c42305e114c48a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201003132351.36353.phma@phma.optus.nu> On Saturday 13 March 2010 19:07:15 Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > OK, I see. In that case "lo nu jukpa" would normally be "lo pu'u > jukpa". I suppose that by "lo za'i jukpa" you mean "being a cook" as > opposed to just "cooking (something)". lo za'i la djan. jukpa is something that either exists or doesn't at any=20 particular time. It exists when John is cooking and doesn't exist when he=20 isn't. lo pu'u la djan. jukpa exists whenever John is cooking, but it also= =20 evolves along with whatever John is cooking, which lo za'i jukpa doesn't. > But consider these: > > (1) la djan cu jukpa > "John is cooking." > "John cooks." > "John is a cook." > > (2) mi djuno lo du'u la djan cu jukpa > "I know that John is cooking." > "I know that John cooks." > "I know that John is a cook." > > (3) la djan cu ruble lo ka jukpa > "John is weak at cooking." > "John is weak as a cook." > > (4) la djan cu nelci lo nu jukpa > "John likes cooking." > "John likes to cook." > "John likes being a cook." I think "la djan. cu nelci lo ka jukpa" means "John likes being a cook",=20 whereas "la djan. cu nelci lo nu jukpa" means the other two, which are=20 synonyms. English grammar point: "X-ing" and "to X", as objects of a verb, are usuall= y=20 synonyms when both are in usage. The one exception I know of is "try": mi troci lo nu kargau le vorme kei lo nu darxi ri I try to open the door by hitting it. I try hitting the door to open it. > Presumably you could distinguish "la djan cu nelci lo pu'u jukpa" from > "la djan cu nelci lo za'i jukpa", so in (4) you would have the option > to specify different types of "nu". But in (1), (2), and (3) you don't > have the corresponding options. So if the subtypes of nu are so > important, how come du'u and ka don't come with their corresponding > subtypes, and how come you can't make the same distinction at the main > bridi level? It just seems to me that the za'i/zu'o/pu'u/mu'e split of > "nu" is not that useful, and if it was useful, it's made in the wrong > place. I'd say that "jei" is a subtype of "du'u". "mi djuno le du'u la djan. jukpa= "=20 implies "la djan. jukpa", whereas "mi djuno le jei la djan. jukpa" doesn't. Pierre =2D-=20 li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci